ucontext_t support for Android x86.

sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc

Index: sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
diff --git a/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc b/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
index 366706f18322a791beff4ab709e75af7a9f2a3c1..d2a561ebfa4834ec78c43eb6509423ce2ba2854d 100644
--- a/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
+++ b/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
@@ -18,8 +18,13 @@
 #include "sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/verifier.h"
 
 // Android's signal.h doesn't define ucontext etc.
-#if defined(OS_ANDROID) && defined(__arm__)
+#if defined(OS_ANDROID)
+#if defined(__arm__)
 #include "sandbox/linux/services/android_arm_ucontext.h"
+#elif defined(__i386__)

[Markus (顧孟勤), 2012/12/21 02:03:54]

Since you picked a file name that was independent of the flavor of the
architecture, you should probably include this file both for __i386__ and for
__x86_64__

Of course, you should also make sure that the file behaves correctly for these
platforms ... or, if you cannot test that, cause it to trigger an #error if the
flavor is currently unsupported. That would give people a heads-up where they
need to start fixing things, when they want to support additional platform
configurations.

[yfw.chromium, 2012/12/21 07:23:17]

Android just has i386 ABI support now. So we don't need to take care of x86_64
for Android. I will introduce #error for other platform.

And yes. x86_64 may be supported by Android in the future. But I suppose Android
bionic should have ucontext definition for x86_64 at that time. So we could
remove all these local definition and use bionic

+#include "sandbox/linux/services/android_x86_ucontext.h"
+#endif
+
 #endif
 
 namespace {